Category Archives: Henry V

The Winter’s Tale – Act IV and Disguise

Posted on December 12, 2011 by asmit

Act IV reminds me of previous plays we’ve read as it brings the heavy use of disguise and unknown identity. We see Perdita, whom nobody knows is actually a princess; Florizel, who hides the fact that he’s a prince and is going by “Doricles”; Autolycus in multiple disguises; and Polixenes, in disguise so no one see’s he’s the king.

Florizel as Doricles reminds me of The Taming of The Shrew, where Lucentio disguises himself as Cambio to gain access to Bianca. Also, Polixenes in disguise reminds me of Henry V, where Henry disguises himself in order to find out what people really think of him.

The use of disguise doesn’t seem to bring about much disaster here; it is the “Spring” (read: happier) part of the play after all. However, I wonder about whether it’s right for Florizel and Polixenes to be in disguises. There seems to be a recurring theme in Shakespeare of kings and noblemen disguising themselves as “lesser” men – and like we brought up in Henry V, is that really moral? And how do we judge its morality – if disguise is a means to a good end (as is what happens to Florizel), is it still moral, or is the very act of disguise – of leaders taking a peek on society without its knowing – immoral?

Posted in Henry V, The Taming of the Shrew, The Winter's Tale | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Henry V and his multiple personalities

Posted on October 22, 2011 by Djenane Desrosiers

From the moment Professor Berggren explained to us how Harry or should I say Henry V altered his behavior from vagabond to true royal model seemingly overnight I thought there was something odd about his personality only to be proven right. He takes on a different role depending on who is speaking to or the situation he is in.

He pretends to be merciful in Act 2 scene 2 when he finds out about the treachery of his officers. But he is shown as heartless in Act 4 scene 7 when he commits a war crime by ordering the war prisoners to death. He is brutal in his war speech in act 3 scene 1 yet inspiring in act 4 scene 1. He is harsh on the people of England when he speaks of them in private in act 4 scene1 but empathetic of them when he speaks to his cousin in act 4 scene 3. Then we have the smooth talking arguably deceitful Henry V in act 5 scene 2 as he tries to woo Katherine.

We only see a sliver of the real Henry V and how he is truly feeling when he is alone and does not have to put on a mask. I can’t say I don’t like what I see under the mask because I know we all wear them in our modern society. Henry V being faced with greater responsibilities has many more faces than we do. Shakespeare captures his different faces well among his emotions.

Posted in Henry V | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Katherine: What is she to Henry?

Posted on October 22, 2011 by me101282

What I found very curious about the exchange in Act V, scene II between Henry and Katherine (or some may argue, a monologue on Henry’s part) was the overdone and flowery language used by Henry to express his seemingly overwhelming love, although this was the very first time they had met. What I also found strange was that throughout this exchange, Henry had not bothered to speak in a way in which she would understand. Most of her answers throughout this scene were “I cannot tell,” meaning that she doesn’t understand him. Yet despite this, Henry continues on his raving about how much he loves her. On top of this, when he attempts to kiss her, and she tells him its against her customs, he immediately brushes it off, and seems to force her to kiss him. This is telling of not only Henry’s arrogance, but also disregard for Katherine’s feelings and his selfishness when it comes to making connections with other people. It is evident through this example, as well as through the strong language he uses when encouraging his soldiers to fight the French army, he views people as commodities, or resources. I wonder, what do you all think about Henry’s character when it comes to dealing with other people?

Posted in Henry V | Tagged , | 1 Comment

A Vampire in Henry V

Posted on October 22, 2011 by Chenda

Pistol did not have much of a major part in the play but he is still an interesting character.  He is most definitely a fool who does not amount to a man, as the Boy have noted and observed in Act 3 Scene 2, and makes promises he cannot keep.  He has a killing tongue in which he speaks things he cannot do.  He says he will fight and kill many men but in reality, he will never draw his sword.  After all, things are easier said than done.

But has it every occurred to anyone that he speaks a lot about sucking blood?  Although he may only mention it twice in 2.4 and 4.4, it’s still an odd statement.  It is understandable that they are fighting in a war but we all know Pistol would not suck any blood.  If he keeps his sword in one piece by keeping it in its sheath, how can he suck the blood of his enemies without having to kill them first?

“Let us to France, like horse-leeches, my boys, To suck, to suck, the very blood to suck!” (2.4.56-57). Maybe Shakespeare intended Pistol to have vampire-like qualities (except the daylight quality).  As in Dracula, no one knew he was a blood-thirsty creature.  Dracula went about his duties acquiring land but doing so during the night.  He appeared like a normal being to others until Jonathan (a man staying at Dracula’s castle to complete some business with him) noticed peculiar things and when his wife Mina started to worry when Jonathan did not come home during the expected week he said he would. 

Was it normal for soldiers to drink the bloods of their enemies?  If not, is it normal for one, such as Pistol, to speak about doing so?  Does saying so show pride for his country?  Does anyone else think it’s weird that Pistol mentions it more than once? 

Posted in Henry V | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Henry V’s soliloquy

Posted on October 18, 2011 by sh106046

In Henry’s soliloquy from Act 4 Scene 1, I thought it was interesting how he was defending his position as a king. As much as he put his country through an “unnecessary war”, we realize that a lot of decisions made by those who are supposedly “wiser and smarter” really are just human decisions that are spurred by pride and the need for recognition. He also juxtaposes two very difficult places to be in: either you take responsibility and you have the high position (being a king) or you have less to no responsibility and you live like a peasant. When trying to decide between the better of the the two, it’s basically being stuck between a rock and and hard place. It also made me realize that leadership is really a trade off. Sure, it’s a lot of sitting down and planning rather than being in the action and being killed, but it requires a huge burden (whether warranted or unwarranted) that must be addressed. It’s more of a psychological burden to bear rather than experiencing what maybe war feels like, first hand.

Posted in Henry V | 5 Comments

The Imagined Other

Posted on October 17, 2011 by Rikki

Like Petruchio in his war on Kate’s inner shrew, Henry V employs an “us v. them” tactic in an unexpected way. In addition to the requisite French bashing, Henry rouses the troops in the opening of scene 3 by inviting them into his noble circle. He talks about their fathers’ honor and valor insisting “there is none of you so mean and base that hath not noble lustre in your eyes” (3.1.29-30). Neither the emotional push nor pull of these arguments are unique. When at war, the enemy is vilified and the soldier is glorified. What is interesting about Henry’s speech, and also very relevant today, is the secondary other that Henry creates. It is not enough for the “us v. them” scenario to encompass one body of “them.” There are also the “men of grosser blood” who stand across the sand line (3.1.24).  Who is Henry talking about? Despite his grand linguistic gestures, the men whom he addresses in this speech are at the very bottom of the totem pole. This speech is not for his horsed noblemen but for the common foot soldier. There are no men of grosser blood. Henry creates a social fallacy to further manipulate his soldiers’ emotions.

Consider the stance of the poor white southern anti-abolitionist in the nineteenth century. For someone who didn’t actually own slaves and therefor had no economic stake in slavery, an anti-abolitionist stance is purely emotional. No group of people wants to see themselves as being the bottom of the social hierarchy and so they push another group beneath themselves. In the case of Henry’s soldiers, the social implications are far less disturbing as the men of grosser blood are an imaginary group of people, but the attitude is the same. Henry smoothly uses a complex model of “us v. them” to accomplish his aims, without actually alienating any English people.

Posted in Henry V | 3 Comments

Henry V vs. earlier plays

Posted on October 16, 2011 by Mary Iannone

I couldn’t help but get some similarities between the characters of Henry V and those of The Taming of the Shrew and Much Ado About Nothing.  Just as Beatrice in Much Ado echoed some of Kate in Taming, I think some of the characters in Henry V echo some of the previous characters as well.

For instance, the Dauphin reminds me somewhat of Claudio in Much Ado.  Claudio was very naive and quick to believe everything he heard.  The Dauphin has similar qualities.  He refers to Henry V as a “vain, giddy, shallow humorous youth” which undoubtedly he was once, but as we’ve seen in earlier acts, is no longer.  Earlier characters have spoke of Henry V with almost reverence, praising how well he’s slipped into the role of King despite his reckless past.  But the Dauphin refuses to listen to the newest information and latches onto only the info that gives him a right to talk badly about Henry.  Similarly, Claudio only had to listen to a tiny bit of information about Hero’s alleged infidelity to believe everything bad about her.

Even a minor character, the hostess, reminds me of previous characters.  Though she is married to Pistol, she has had a romantic past with Nim.  This arguing over a woman brings a strong reminder to everyone’s fascination with Bianca in The Taming of the Shrew.  And in her speech in Act 2, Scene 3, when she is speaking of Falstaff dying, she makes many malapropisms that remind me of Dogberry in Much Ado.

These reminders may be unintentional, but I think it shows how Shakespeare had recurring themes in his plays, despite how differently themed they are.  While Henry V reads more like an epic play, the fact that it can call up reminders of his earlier comedies differs Shakespeare’s writing from anyone else’s.

Posted in Henry V | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments

King’s Dilemma

Posted on October 8, 2011 by urszula.glowacka

The Chorus apologize the audience because of the limitations of the stage what makes it difficult to present the events as they really are. It encourages the viewer to imagine the reality and see things that are only mentioned by name. It makes me think how often in real life we skew the facts to work according to our needs or to excuse certain decisions we make.

King Henry a noble man is expected to be a soldier. He knows that English man do not accept his rights to the throne and one of the best ways to keep the people on his side is to go to war and gain the recognition and power. Henry spent his young years in the tavern befriending lowlifes and drunks. When he became King he changed his life style as well as priorities and abandoned his old friends. He presents himself as a responsible, good king, who thinks carefully weather to invade France. Because of his background Henry understands the people and recognizes the devastation of the war to the country and the citizens. I think that despite of his dilemma Henry wants to invade. He knows the benefits that the successful war can bring for him, at the same time he is reluctant to take the responsibility for his decisions. In act I scene I and II we see that Henry welcomes all the arguments that encourage him to proceed with the war. The King asks the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Ely for the honest and truthful advice concerning his rights to the French throne. The conversation between the Ely and Canterbury in Act I, scene I reveal what is going on behind the scenes. The clergy is corrupt and has little regard for the good of the country. Canterbury and Ely manipulate the King in order to keep their wealth. The advisors with sole intent of guarding their own interests recommend the King to go to war. Once the King gets blessing from the clergy, he passes the responsibility of his decision onto the Church. In act I scene II Henry gets insulted by the French ambassador and he once again finds the reason to excuse his actions.

Just as the audience cannot see the events as they are because of the limited capabilities of the scene, the same way Henry cannot see true motives of his advisors because he follows his own interest. However, Henry recognizes that it is wrong that’s why he delegates the responsibility to others. He thinks that he has the support and dedication of all English man but in fact everybody follows they own needs clergy want to prevent the passing of the bill that will lead to confiscate of its land. Cambridge, Scrope, and Grey conspire against Henry in order to get money from the French, even Pistol, Bardolph, Nim are going to war to steal and rob. The reality is far from what chorus is promoting and what King bases his decision on.

 

Posted in Henry V | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

The Chorus

Posted on October 5, 2011 by ef082014

To build on what we already discussed in class, I’d like to take the Chorus of Henry V into consideration.  It is both unique and brilliant in which the way Shakespeare initially uses the Chorus in this play—having the members apologize to the audience for any inaccuracies that will occur while attempting to recreate authentic settings/plots within the confined area of the stage.  By doing this, Shakespeare uses a transition into the play itself, while simultaneously giving the audience additional responsibility and immedietely captivating their attention.  Before Act 2, the Chorus again offers apologies for innacuracy and serves a transition, however I am still not entirely sure as to why they claim the play will shift to Southampton, when it actually shifts to London…exact purpose; intention?  I know we spoke about this in class but it is still unclear to me.  Moving on, the Chorus in Act 3 seems rather different than the aforementioned appearances.   There is the use of alarm and cannon sounds in the background—I thought that this was noteworthy as it clearly defines a difference in the Chorus and would be extremely effective to further captivate the audience, though I wonder how it was done during that time period.  Also, the Chorus in Act 3 actually tells the truth (in rather great detail) of the upcoming scene, rightfully depicting the King and his men arriving at Harfleur and using cannons.

Posted in Henry V | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments